No on #1 — An income tax ban is unnecessary

By Jeff McLynch

fosters.com

By Jeff McLynch

Posted Nov. 2, 2012 at 3:15 AM

By Jeff McLynch

Posted Nov. 2, 2012 at 3:15 AM

New Hampshire is a state that takes great pride in its democratic institutions — and rightly so. Every four years, we lead the way with the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. We have a legislature that is unparalleled in the degree of representation it provides and town meetings that allow citizens to have a direct say in the affairs of their communities.

Central to New Hampshire’s approach to democracy is its constitution, one of the oldest in the nation and one that has served the state well with comparatively few changes over the past two centuries.

In a little more than a week, New Hampshire voters will be asked to make a number of critical choices. They will help determine the leader of our nation; they will select the head of our state; and they will pick the men and women who will sit in our State House. Just as importantly, they will be asked, via Question One at the bottom of the ballot, whether to change the state’s constitution to prohibit, in perpetuity, the creation of a broad-based income tax.

Given our constitution’s long history, changes to it should demonstrate a clear need and reflect a careful consideration of the consequences for future generations. Question One fails to meet both these standards.

Without a doubt, Question One is unnecessary. The people of New Hampshire already have readily available, frequently employed, and quite reliable tools for shaping tax policy here in the Granite State — elections and the legislative process. Indeed, given popular sentiment about a sales or an income tax, both candidates for Governor have vowed to veto legislation to institute a broad-based tax should it reach their desk. In the same vein, legislation to put such a tax in place not been seriously considered by either the House of Representatives or the Senate in recent memory.

Nevertheless, proponents of Question One have suggested that it offers another opportunity for voters to express their views on New Hampshire’s tax system. They also argue that, should Question One pass, it can be undone in the future, should the need arise.

Such claims diminish both the decision before voters and the constitution itself. Question One is not simply an opinion poll. Its impact is binding and could be with the state forever. Nor is the constitution is a collection of temporary proposals, ready to be altered or revoked in the span of a few years. It is a document written in ink, not pencil.

Furthermore, Question One, if adopted, would have major ramifications for the way we govern ourselves in New Hampshire. It would tie the hands of lawmakers and deny our children and grandchildren the ability to decide critical public issues for themselves. It is impossible to know either the difficulties or opportunities that await generations yet to come or how they may choose to respond to them. What is clear, though, is that it should be up to them to select the approach that best suits their needs and then to hold their elected officials accountable. In short, Question One holds the potential to undermine future expressions of popular will and to leave state government less responsive to the people it serves.

More directly, by removing options from the table, Question One limits the state’s flexibility and would likely force policymakers to turn to existing sources of revenue, such as business and property taxes, to generate the funds needed to resolve long-standing problems like the state’s structural budget deficit or to embark on new initiatives.

In the end, New Hampshire’s advantage lies in its people, their skills and talents, their creativity and intelligence, their frugality and skepticism. Its constitution should continue to draw its strength from those same sources in the years and decades ahead. It should not be changed to limit the wisdom and vision of the people of New Hampshire or to tie them, once and for all, to a single policy on taxation. Accordingly, voters across the state should say no and reject Question One on Nov. 6.

Jeff McLynch is executive director of the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, a public policy think tank.